Skip to main content
7:30 am
institution put our children, medical reasons meaning next door to next to the toxic environments that i have ever experienced, hydrogen sulfide, some of the words that are used to breakdown the solids, i went to 3250 and i asked the residents there, the meat markets there said that's the worst thing that could be done. who would allow a youth medical facility to be in this environment? the residents there said they had opposed it. we had no knowledge of this happening and i went and spoke with district 10 representative and they told me it was done because -- that they didn't want to lose a million dollars, so you mean to tell me that you put a price on our children. i have a son that was in this -- went to this doctor and i will not say no names, i took my son away from her practice because i couldn't believe that
7:31 am
this person would put a million dollars in one of the most befouled areas there is. i went and took pictures and i saw the residue of what was coming up out of the water and that the representative of the sewage plant admitted they had a broken seal that had not been fished but near fisherman's wharf, they don't smell that, this is genocide in this community, and we're asking for a faout ral person to do the environmental impact. we're requesting that the environmental commission do this impact, we don't agree, we think it's -- i know it's foul play because if any of you go and walk near third and evans, you wouldn't have any of your children there and too bad we only have three minutes because i'm going to tell you, out of 28 years, i do whatever it takes to make sure this facility won't stand.
7:32 am
thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is robert woods, and you know, over 35 years ago, i worked for the city planning department. it's been a few years and i thought we did a pretty good job in recognizing what was needed for the city, but i tell you this, i see you are still standing evidently, you are still doing a good job and i like to make sure that we bring things to you that you can solve for us because we have right now on 3450, third
7:33 am
street, the site is -- has been approved on a well in the center which is a toxic site and that site was never tested, but by the same, we're looking at other areas that is related to this very same toxic experience in that area there, and i ask you to take a good look at that and do not allow our kids and our families be exposed to an untested site that has been manipulated by the city health department which there are evidence that the city health department and the -- i think it's environmental
7:34 am
department for the federal government, they manipulated a lot of the data that was being passed over and given to lanar, and lanar was paying them and they were making decisions based on what lanar was warning, and i say please do not let this go unchallenged. it needs to be looked at. i think you are sitting in the right positions to call for a fair hearing and make sure that people of color, especially they are going to be the ones that's going to be exposed to whatever is there because that facility is in the community, please, clean it up. we need that. thank you. >> thank you.
7:35 am
>> additional speakers are called. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name was not called, i'm sue vaughn, i'm with the sierra club, i'm happy to review the eir for brandon street, i got it the other day, viewing that project whole hole elastically, should we build all that housing before we solved all those problems, think of those things. the other thing i'm glad i'm thrilled to hear commissioner wu talking about long-term vision and as you move forward, i would you to consider climate change and what that means in terms of the decisions you are
7:36 am
making. supervisor erik mar is my district supervisor and he recommended this book to me, high tide on main street and i recommend that you get copies of itser it's available online, it's not available in bookstores and i want to read a little bit, i don't know if i'll get through it all. the author is an oceanographer named john inglander, in it, he provides links to sea level rise, and here in the bay area, every page on this book is something alarming, in 2011, dr. james han son published a paper with an alarming new hypothesis and sent shock waves in the community, based on his record, they say the melting rate in greenland and antarctic
7:37 am
could incollies in a non-linear manner possibly even doubling every decade, such a progression would mean as much as a 16 feet or five meters of sea level rise by the end of the century, they clearly state that the possible double ising not a precise figure, if the doubling proves correct, that's a foot of rise per year by the end of the century and the further doubling of ocean height in the next century until there was no more ice to melt, anything of that rate of melting, it would be gone in a matter of centuries, not millennia, john h*ils says, he predicts a four to five foot rise by 2100 and please consider this as you're considering parking and how
7:38 am
much parking you're going add top projects, cars are going to push us to the tipping point. consider it in a few weeks when you take up the warrior's [inaudible], thank you. (calling mr. speaker names). >> good afternoon, commissioner, my name is paul romer and i think i'm here on one of my broken record items, i know i'm usually grumpy and i do want to acknowledge that the department, the planning department particularly does a very good job of outreach, but it could be better. some years back, they embarked on the universal planning notification project, that made some headway and then it died. since that time, the various
7:39 am
messaging tools available have only penetrated the population further. the ability to provide information and communicate to people in a timely manner has increased dramatically. i would really like to encourage the planning department to revive that and really take a look at what are we noticing people for, why they are being noticed and how much time in particular neighborhoods need to understand and respond to issues that are published, this crops up with respect to project approvals to begin with, also a lot of the issues with respect to the ceqa revisions that supervisor wiener was proposing, some of which are very good, some of which i think are very bad because the approval time or the appeal time on a ceqa
7:40 am
notice is triggered by an event that happens so -- with no notice, so that there are many things that in principle could trigger an appeal of a neg dec but there's no notice of an event until a permit is issued. that doesn't give people time to analyze what the problem is and go into it. there are so many areas where better communication can make the whole system more efficient and remove resistance to changes that would make things flow even better so i'm really asking, please, revive that. i will continue to press this in a number of different forums, thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong and vice-president wu, commissioners, i'm a native san franciscan born and raised in the mission district, i've lived in this city my entire life, i passed the half century
7:41 am
mark, i'm a proud member of carpenter's local 122, a labor organization, for 130 year, generations of carpenter local 122 members have built this as far as the eye can see, that's a good thing, we live here, we're the stakeholders and this is the hat we wear, we don't wear those black hats with the acronym that carries this negative connotation of the governmental organize says, we wear gear like that because we're proud members of this local, we're proud member of this community, we generate the economic engine, we're trying to pay our mortgages and rent here, we have the highest cost o*f living. when these developers come here and i've known many of them for the last 20 year, they have all the good intents to giving community benefits to the community. i don't think there's a better or greater community benefit
7:42 am
than putting young brothers and sisters to work, we have young brothers and sisters here in san francisco and communities of color that have no hope, so i hope you could give your influence, commissioners, it can't be always about architecture and traffic flow and height and block, i think you made a commitment to your fellow san franciscans, so put us to work, it's a good thing for the city, some day you may need us again, bh the 1906 earthquake came about, it was members from carp try members local 122 that allowed san franciscans again to have hope that a new day would come and a greater san francisco would exist, and so we ask again, commissioners, that you focus something on not just the structures that are san
7:43 am
francisco but the members of our community that need your assistance. the developers would be more than happy to do that, we ask that the majority of those would be san franciscans. this is where you can make a difference. happy new year, commissioners, i wish you well in your deliberations. >> thank you. (calling speakers). >> linda chapman, i'm going to bring you again a prayer from the methodist congregation and inherited assisted st. john's whose administrator you heard from and for months, they've been remembering you in their
7:44 am
prayers, from the methodist emission, from activists working for compassionate youth, for conference leaders as they seek a positive solution, and i think that their prayers are beginning to be answered, some is being revitalized right now and the woman whom you met is apparently a candidate to be added to that board that actually is supposed to be managing the properties. in addition, on knob hill, three of the cantonese speakers have been going to the owners and they had a long list that i didn't present to you when i brought the list of supporters or proponents of the kond -- condo project, but the property owners in that area opposed the demolition before and they
7:45 am
oppose them still, people who have been property owners there for 50 and 60 years and even longer, as far back at 1890 in some cases of the land. in addition to that, i see that you did not go forward and rush to judgment when a mistake was made, sometimes you don't have to promote the mistake or pursue it. in the case of 1300 sacramento which we fought years ago and stopped the demolition, the planning commission turned it down unanimously, there was a persistent developer, there were no demolition controls, we were hanging on to that building which was empty by the thread of conditional use, and also there were no vacant building ordinances and bob pass more said to us, all we can do is clear out those people with the open flames and shut your open windows or else we're going to order you to demolish the building which was
7:46 am
not exactly put to mind, so in that case, dean was attempting so say something and said, if you're going to demolish the 22 rental units, you're going to have to build 22 rental units somewhere else, but the next thing, the developer came in with a garage he had bought on california street where he was going to build 22 unit, we found it would be another investment property and that was precedent for all of the other demolition buildings that we did in fact save, the 6 we did in fact save, they were throughout the city, and i will come back to you to talk about related subjects. >> for the benefit of the public, i noticed a couple of speaker cards that i passed up to the commission president that described the item number they want to speak to, if you're speaking to the certification of the
7:47 am
environmental impact or the or the report itself, this is your opportunity to speak to that item, number 10, okay, because public comment under item 10 is closed, however, if you're speaking to the project itself, either 801 brandon or 1 henry adam street, you will be v the opportunity to speak to the commission. >> this is sue hester, as it happens, item 10 but three other things, i appreciated commissioner borden's comments, you commented on a project by a former planning commissioner which people don't realize that roger was on the planning commission and additionally on the maps, that site is still for demolition. i think it should be looked at
7:48 am
because when the board -- planning commission was doing the marker, they did [inaudible] study, they were hot to demolish that site. number 2, the aeu later that went to the commissioners directly, i have tried everywhere to find the letter in the planning department files and when a letter comes directly to planning commissioners, please ask if the commission's secretary and the files have it and it's something that attorneys know they have to give to other people, but you are the enforcement mechanism and i would hope that it would not happen again from the academy of art university, that one is not in any file. the part about item 10, there is a letter in the file from
7:49 am
the mayor's office, and extensive document ins the planning department file about demolishing about i280 and that is right next to the site for 801 brannan and 1 ren -- henry adams, it is one that the planning department is work on for reorienting the traffic, and those should be a traffic in eir's like 801 gran -- brannan street, you can't skip over them because another part of the planning department and the mayor's office has a plan to change traffic. it needs to be in the eir's, the traffic studies for projects, particularly those that are right along the freeway, let alone that are affected by it. last point, from espan loel na
7:50 am
jackson's comments, i think you need to have a general hearing at the planning department on how your mailing lys are put together and who gets notices, all those things are staff functions that i think commissioners and the public really need to have a refresher course every once in a while so you don't have people up here giving comments that they didn't have any notice. thank you. >> so, as the commission secretary mentioned, these are cards that i have and i'm not sure if they are to the project or the eir. (calling speakers). >> good afternoon, commissioner, my name is sabastian, i am a local businessman two blocks away from this proposed project, i'm
7:51 am
speaking in support of your certification of the eir and of the project in general. i've been down there going on almost two decades now since 1996, i've seen a lot of transformation in that part of the city. we've been through the .com peaks and lots of buildings down there. we cater to the local community, we are a local business. i'm excited that being down there, there hasn't been a lot of services and i think with more housing, more other local business people will have other opportunities to open up small businesses in the area. san francisco rents have skyrocketed despite the best intentions of rent control. i believe the only real
7:52 am
solution to try to keep rents under control is to provide more rental housing. additionally, i think this project is well located in that there are services like mine in the area, mass transit, the highway, you can walk to the ballpark from this area. i think the project should be supported and i really am in favor of rental housing. thank you. >> i have to remind the public is that this public comment is to the environmental impact report, not to the project itself. >> we put our cards in on this but we want to talk later. >> i'll hold it for 11a. any additional general public comment? okay, seeing none, general public comment is closed.
7:53 am
next item please >> item 9, fiscal year 2013-2015 proposed department budget, this is an informational item and requires no action. >> good afternoon, commissioner, john ram with the planning department, i want to briefly introduce, this will be the first of multiple hearings on the coming year's budget, which is a two year budget, as you recall, we do a two year budget every year, so this is the second year of last year's budget but we have to do a budget from fiscal year 13-15, i wanted to remind you that as you heard last week through the supplemental appropriation, our fee revenues are anticipated to be much higher than we budgeted for this fiscal year and we will see that 3% volume increase in our applications, we are anticipating volume levels to be the same, i'm trying to be a bit conservative
7:54 am
and not assume the same level of growth next year so we're not assuming more revenues, but we are being more conservative in our projection for next year and not assuming the same strong growth that we had last year. so, this does propose to increase staffing levels by about 8fte next year and 9 in the fiscal year 14-15, and we will focus on a number of updates from the historic preservation and general plan, transportation analysis, communications and public outreach which are some of the programs that we like to fund with this additional staff. with that, i'll turn it over to keith demartini who will go over the details. >> my name is keith demartini, i'm the finance manager for the planning department, i'm here to present the fiscal year 2013-2015 departmental budget,
7:55 am
i have copies of the powerpoint presentation and there are copies for member of the public that would like to follow along with my presentation as well. i will just be giving you an overview of recent planning case and building volume trends that we've been experiencing, the expenditure budget as well as the proposed grants capital and other budget requests, and then just an update on the budget calendar going forward. so, let's just start with a recent planning case and building permit volume trends as director ram has already mentioned, i'm on slide three here, we had anticipated a 3% volume growth in this fiscal year which we are experiencing, approximately 80% of our case and building permit activity comes from the review, we'll
7:56 am
see growth in permit building review and various multiple application ins this current year. we are at this time projecting that volume will remain relatively flat in the upcoming budget years in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 and those are the two bars on the right, a historical trending of the volume we've experienced over the past ten years and what we project into the next two fiscal years. so, moving on to the department's revenue budget in the next two years, as i communicated to you, we are expecting approximately 6 million dollar revenue surplus in this fiscal year in the department's budget. upon review of these larger projects and these existing and titled projects are in the pipeline, the department anticipates the trend of larger
7:57 am
project case review will continue into the next two fiscal year, at this time, we don't anticipate that it will happen at the same magnitude that we are experiencing right now, we are seeing a pretty substantial bump in this current fiscal year, we expect growth in next fiscal year but not to the same magnitude. the department's fee revenue is anticipated to increase by 19% from what the current year's budget is into next fiscal year's budget and that's mainly due to the three following reasons, first, the fee revenue increases from the continuing trend of the larger project reviews which i mentioned is the most driving factor, there is an automatic consumer price index that automatically adjusts all the fees in the planning and administrative codes, and that rate is 3.258%, and we are also assuming the
7:58 am
recognition of close to a million dollars of building permit revenue that we will collect in this current fiscal year that we will anticipate being able to defer and recognize into the next fiscal year, so that we can recognize that revenue in next fiscal year when we conduct the review on those building permits, those are the three factors that drive the charges for services line item on this table. in fiscal 14-15, the only change to the fee revenue assumption is the automatic cpi indexing of our fees, it's 2.86%, we are expecting grant revenues to increase in the budget years in the next fiscal year by almost 24%, and similar to last year, the department will probably receive some development impact fee revenue that recovers our staff costs
7:59 am
related to the administration of various development impact fee programs around the city. and you'll see the general fund line. this 3.8 million dollars in fiscal 13-14 does meet the mayor's budget instructions of reducing our general fund allocation by 1.5% in each of the fiscal years. moving on to the expenditure side of things, as in prior years, salary and fringe expenditures continue to be the most driving factor, and the most significant proportion

February 13, 2013 7:30am-8:00am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 4, Brannan 2, Keith Demartini 2, Wu 2, Lanar 2, The City 2, Us 2, San Franciscans 2, Vaughn 1, John Inglander 1, Erik Mar 1, The Aeu 1, John H 1, Wiener 1, Espan Loel 1, Fong 1, Dr. James Han 1, Paul Romer 1, Linda Chapman 1, Eir 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color